HIV in Kenya

Welcome to my blog. HIV prevalence is not a reliable indicator of sexual behavior because the virus is also transmitted through unsafe healthcare, unsafe cosmetic practices and various traditional practices. This is why many HIV interventions, most of which concentrate entirely on sexual behavior, have been so unsuccessful.

Imagine you wish to make money in these ways: you have clients who pay you to have sex; and you have clients who pay you not to. The two types of client are perfectly compatible. Instead of making eight dollars a day (100 Rand), week or month, you can make sixteen, or you can use the payment as leverage to charge some clients more, or as a subsidy to charge some less.

These 'conditional cash transfers' seem to be based on a number of assumptions. For a start, they seem to assume that HIV is almost always a result of sex, generally extra-marital sex, and generally 'unsafe' sex. They also seem to assume that protecting themselves against being infected with HIV is within the control of the recipient of the money.

What about non-sexually transmitted HIV, through unsafe healthcare, cosmetic or traditional practices? Don't people infected in that way need money too? Shouldn't they be encouraged to avoid health facilities where conditions are dangerous, also practitioners who have a poor record for safety?

By the way, the recipient of money is always female. Therefore, it is further assumed that the male with whom the female has sexual intercourse is usually the 'index case', the one more likely to be HIV positive. (All men are sexual predators and all women are sexual victims, at least in the world of HIV.)

But, as it turns out, most young males in South Africa and other sub-Saharan African countries tend to be HIV negative. Far more females than males become infected, some in their teens, but far more in their twenties, and many in their thirties. So who is doing all this infecting?

This requires another assumption: the girls/women are having sex with men who are older than them, often much older. There are several problems with this attempt at rescuing current HIV 'policy' and thinking: many females do not have sex with men who are much older than themselves; many 'older' men are not HIV positive; and many females are infected even though their sexual partners are roughly the same age as themselves.

Worse still, some girls/women are infected even though they either have not had sex, or they have always taken precautions. In fact, using condoms is more strongly associated with higher HIV prevalence than not using condoms. Those trying to dig themselves out of this hole claim that people who know they are HIV positive are more likely to use condoms. But this claim is not well supported by evidence.

'Intergenerational' marriage and sex, where one partner (usually the male) is older than the other, used to be the darling of the anti-sex brigade. But very little research was carried out into whether it really resulted in higher rates of HIV transmission. When some research was carried out it was found that it may be associated with lower rates of transmission.

Unsurprisingly, more men will agree to be circumcised if they are paid more money, and fewer if they are paid less. But most of the men who agree to the operation would have already agreed to it without the payment; they were already convinced that circumcision would be the answer to their prayers (or what they thought were their prayers).

There is cash to stay in school, even though this is not associated with lower HIV incidence. The payments may continue because school is a good thing. But didn't we know that already? Didn't we already know that all children should go to school and that there should be equal access for all children, regardless of their gender, tribe, religion, etc?

There is cash to support prevention of transmission of HIV from mother to child. What about reducing infection in mothers? Many are infected when they are already pregnant, even late in their pregnancy, or just after giving birth. Many infected have husbands who are negative. These women are unlikely to have been infected through sexual intercourse, despite the constant pompous and racist prognostications of the HIV industry.

Sometimes the payment, or some of it, goes to the family. Great, so poverty is a bad thing; and another thing we just wouldn't have known if it hadn't been for this research? The World Bank made a big hoo hah recently about how wonderful eradicating human parasites is, how much better off children are, with improvements in health, academic achievement, etc.

But human parasites are debilitating and result from appalling living conditions. They are also easily and cheaply treated. Aside from the clever medications, provision of water and food of a quality appropriate for human consumption can also significantly reduce the problem. Why so much research to tell us what we already know? Why so much research telling us that a lot of what we are doing are wrong, yet the research, and much of what we are doing, both continue.

Something all of the above failed approaches have in common is that they show that HIV is not very closely related to sexual behavior. It is not just that attempting to influence someone's sexual behavior often fails; successfully influencing someone's sexual behavior also fails to reduce HIV transmission.

Conditional cash transfers that assume HIV is almost always a result of sexual behavior don't just frequently fail to influence sexual behavior, they fail to prevent HIV transmission. Mass male circumcision has been shown to reduce HIV transmission from females to males, only slightly, and only under certain conditions; but it increases transmission from males to females.

These same researchers have been working on the same unpromising initiatives for many years, even decades: Karim, Pettifor, Jukes, Thirumurthy, etc. However, their racist bilge doesn't fail because it is racist, it fails because it is based on assumptions that are not borne out by their own findings. Except in the minds of journalists, there is no 'money, sex, HIV' triad in Africa; HIV is also transmitted through non-sexual routes, such as unsafe healthcare, cosmetic and traditional practices. Let's try dealing with that.

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

UNAIDS, WHO, CDC and other institutions continue their insistence that HIV is almost always transmitted through heterosexual sex in African countries (though nowhere else), and that unsafe healthcare, cosmetic and traditional practices play a vanishingly small and declining role in transmission.

It was suggested to me recently by someone who questions the above views that these well funded institutions will eventually have to change their tune. However, he felt that they would not admit that they are wrong, or that they have known since the 1980s about the risks posed by unsafe healthcare and other non-sexual HIV transmission routes.

Unfortunately, the WHO is not very explicit about the problem: there are many health professionals who are unaware about the risks of reusing skin piercing equipment, especially injecting equipment. These health professionals do not warn their patients because they are unaware that they should not reuse syringes, needles, even multi-dose vials that may have become contaminated.

People may be surprised that there are health professionals who are unaware of these risks, or that they take these risks even if they are aware of them. But every year there are cases of infectious, even deadly diseases, being transmitted to patients through careless use of skin piercing equipment. Tens of thousands of people are put at risk, and that's just in wealthy countries.

As for poor countries, especially sub-Saharan African countries, where the highest rates of HIV are to be found, no one knows how many people have been put at risk, how many have been infected with hepatitis, HIV or other blood borne viruses, or how many are still at risk. People are not being made aware of the risks they face, so they can not take steps to avoid them.

Unsafe healthcare, cosmetic and traditional practices carry huge risks, especially in countries where blood borne viruses such as hepatitis, HIV and others are common. People can avoid infection with these blood borne viruses by avoiding potentially unsafe healthcare, unsafe cosmetic practices, such as tattooing or body piercing, and traditional practices, such as circumcision or scarification.

Wednesday, July 1, 2015

Although there are plenty of instances of institutionally sanctioned violence against women, this blog post is about two very prominent instances: mass male circumcision programs [*Greg Boyle, cited below; one of the most up to date publications on the subject, which cites many of the seminal works] and the aggressive promotion of the dangerous injectible contraceptive, Depo Provera (DMPA).

Why are mass male circumcision (MMC) programs instances of violence against women? Well, three trials of MMC were carried out to show that it reduced female to male transmission of HIV. They were show trials, with the entire process monitored to ensure that it gave the results that the researchers wanted. These trials have been cited countless times by popular and academic publications.

Less frequently cited was a single trial of MMC that was intended to show that it reduced male to female transmission of HIV. None of these four trials were independent of each other and the female to male trials produced suspiciously similar results, despite taking place in different countries, with ostensibly different teams. But the single male to female trial showed the opposite to what the researchers wanted: circumcision increased HIV transmission, considerably.

During all four of the trials, male participants were not required to inform their partner if they were found to be HIV positive, or if they became infected during the trial. If there had been any ethical oversight, those refusing to inform their partner would have been excluded from the trial. This is what would have happened in western countries, including the one that funded the research, the US.

Given that many women and men believe that circumcision protects a man from HIV, these MMC programs are giving HIV positive men the means to have possibly unprotected sex with HIV negative women. Many women and men were infected with HIV during the four show trials and almost all of those infections could have been avoided. How participants became infected during the trials has never been investigated, which is not only unethical, but also renders the trials useless.

These two instances of violence against women (and men) are funded by the likes of CDC, UNAIDS and the Gates Foundation. Many research papers extolling the virtues of MMC and Depo Provera are paid for by such institutions, copiously cited by them in publications, and constantly wheeled out as examples of successful global health programs. Yet, they are both responsible for countless numbers of avoidable HIV infections.

There is currently a lot of institutional maundering about violence against women and certain instances of it, but some of these same institutions are taking part in the perpetration of it; they are funding it, making money and careers out of it, promoting themselves and their activities on the back of what is entirely unethical. Why do Institutional Review Boards, peer reviewers and academics, donors and others seem happy to ignore these travesties? Who is it that decides that this is all OK, when it clearly is not?

Why are these not considered to be unethical: aggressively promoting the use of a dangerous medication, and an invasive operation that will neither protect men nor women? Is it because those promoting them are making a lot of money out of them, because the victims are mostly poor, non-white people, because the research and programs take place in poor countries, because ethics is nice in principle but too expensive in practice...? Or all of the above and more?

Thursday, June 25, 2015

Many articles about ebola continue to mention a two year old boy who was probably infected with the virus some time in December of 2013. The articles refer to the boy as the 'index case', as if his being infected set off the recent epidemic in West Africa.

In fact, working back from confirmed cases, the trail goes cold before December 2013. There is no data about the virus and the investigation becomes pure speculation at this point. There is no evidence that the boy was infected by a bat, nor is there evidence that bats or other animals in the area carry ebola.

Articles mentioning this two year old boy, bats, 'corpse touching' at funerals and even sexually transmitted ebola (of which no cases have ever been confirmed), are commonplace. It is not just the media that revel in them, but also many scientific and medical articles.

But the people of West Africa seem oblivious to many of the warnings they have been receiving about ebola. And maybe they are right?

Worse still, their condition may be mistaken for ebola and they could end up in an ebola treatment unit, with other suspected ebola cases, some of which turn out to have the virus.

To fear health facilities in Africa is perfectly logical. Healthcare conditions in most African countries are appalling. Not just ebola, but HIV, TB, hepatitis and other diseases have been spread by unsafe healthcare practices, such as reused injecting and other skin-piercing instruments.

CDC, UNAIDS, WHO and other health agencies may be convinced by their own propaganda, but people in Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia are not. And, it seems, they have entirely valid reasons for ignoring this 'official' advice. Unfortunately, that means many people will suffer from and die from easily treated conditions.

But 'global' health is in crisis because those most likely to suffer from 'global' health conditions are probably least likely to trust health facilities in their country. The interference of various international agencies (or local offices of international agencies) is only likely to increase this mistrust.

Nigeria has problems with 'quack' doctors. Nigerians escaped a serious ebola epidemic, but the second largest HIV positive population in the world resides in Nigeria. Nigeria has also swallowed the dubious claims of UNAIDS and others that HIV is almost always transmitted through heterosexual sex in Africa countries.

The ebola epidemic has shown that people find it hard to trust 'global' health agencies. Warnings about various sexual practices and HIV have also fallen on deaf ears. But perhaps ordinary people are right to ignore 'global' health agencies. Perhaps bush meat and 'corpse touching' are either not as common or not as risky as we have been told. And perhaps the appalling conditions to be found in health facilities are much more risky than we have been told.

Strong evidence that a significant proportion of transmissions of ebola is a result of unsafe healthcare is quietly ignored; CDC and others don't wish to warn people that the healthcare systems expected to deal with such outbreaks are far too weak to keep people alive, and are likely to be part of the problem in the cases of ebola and HIV.

The English Guardian has a lengthy article about this single penis transplant, and has had a few, equally salacious articles, about botched circumcisions that occur in traditional, non-sterile settings. That same smug, self-satisfied newspaper has had next to nothing to say about appalling conditions in healthcare facilities in places where HIV prevalence is very high, or about the possible role of unsafe healthcare in transmitting HIV, hepatitis C and B, ebola, TB and various other diseases.

The craze for circumcising African men is based on the view that HIV is almost always 'spread' by men, through 'unsafe' sex, which almost every 'African' engages in, almost all the time (a view based entirely on prejudice). The press is completely unmoved by the fact that circumcision of men may increase HIV transmission from males to females, considerably.

The media goes crazy about the 'possibly sexually transmitted' ebola case, even exaggerating it into a dead certainty that it was sexually transmitted; and they are happy to promote the view that Africans engage in types and levels of sexual behavior that should be curbed by various (failed) measures, paid for by donor money. But this is just a continuation of what various colonizers began.

The racism behind the view that HIV is almost always transmitted through heterosexual contact in (some) African countries, but no non-African countries, has always remained unremarked by the press. The prejudice behind singling out uncircumcised African men and HIV positive women for intense vilification is rarely mentioned.

The health services are unable to cope with any illnesses and throwing money at HIV will not result in reasonable numbers of well trained and equipped staff, adequate supplies and, most of all, levels of cleanliness and hygiene that eliminate the possibility that many patients will end up being infected with something in hospital that is far worse than what they were admitted with.

Nor are Aidsmap alone in failing to consider the possibility that some of those women, perhaps most of those women, were infected with HIV through unsafe healthcare, reused syringes, needles, various types of equipment and various processes that require a far better level of hygiene than will be found in extremely high prevalence provinces, such as KwaZulu Natal and Mpumalanga.

The pharmaceutical industry does very well out of HIV and several other diseases that have hit the headlines in the mainstream press, and are deemed worthy of enormous funding. Many NGOs have been built by HIV money and will only thrive and prosper as long as a few diseases are considered worthy of massive funding.

The press loves a story about a penis transplant in a country too poor to prevent thousands of unnecessary deaths every year, of women giving birth, babies, children and adults with easily treated and prevented diseases. Appalling conditions in health services in most African countries does not merit the attention of the press, they are far too commonplace. If a story from 'Africa' has even the remotest connection with sex, publish it; if not, forget it.

But as this article about unsafe injections in US health facilities makes clear, it is the behavior of well qualified people in legitimate facilities that can threaten the health and lives of patients, especially in poor areas. Being registered may result in practices and practitioners being scrutinized from time to time, if there are mechanisms and personnel for such scrutiny.But in Cambodia there are numerous unlicenced practitioners and facilities because there is a chronic and long term shortage of trained and qualified personnel. There are also shortages of equipment and supplies. The cost of healthcare is simply too high for most people, so they resort to unlicenced practitioners and practices.But that does not mean things are completely safe in legitimate facilities, where some or most of the employees may be relatively well trained and qualified. Nor does it mean that there are adequate measures taken to inspect premises or practitioners, nor consequences for unsafe behaviors.The current 'investigation', which seems to be progressing at a snail's pace, is being carried out in conjunction with UNAIDS and the World Health Organization. But these organizations specialize in disinformation about health facility transmitted HIV. The current approach in Cambodia is to point the finger at one unlicenced practitioner, and his practice, rather than health services in their entirety.Now it seems the investigation into how almost 300 people became infected with HIV is being further watered down by concentrating on the issue of licences, which suggests that it is not scrutinizing the potentially unsafe behaviors of those working in healthcare. It even appears that some of the clinics being closed down are run by Chinese nationals or ethnic Chinese Cambodian nationals, using unsafe healthcare to deflect attention from anti-Chinese prejudice (something UNAIDS is unlikely to question).

Not one single case of sexually transmitted ebola has ever been demonstrated, in nearly 40 years. The presence of the virus in some form in semen has been demonstrated. But the possibility that the virus can be transmitted via that semen has not. And the author is even, to some extent, aware of this.

So why do the media rant on about sexually transmitted ebola? Could it be a continuation of some of the racist views of Africans that date back many decades, perhaps centuries? Several decades (at least) before HIV was identified, it was assumed that prevalence of certain sexually transmitted infections in African countries, such as syphilis and gonnorhea, was a result of 'promiscuity'.

More enlightened researchers published papers, also decades ago, arguing that there was absolutely no evidence that levels of 'promiscuity' were higher in African countries than elsewhere. Some of them also argued that the conditions of health services, along with the living and working conditions to which people in colonial Africa were subjected, were far more significant factors than sexual behavior.

Some of them were reacting to the efforts of the various different eugenics movements to provide 'scientific' evidence for their extraordinary views. However, once HIV was identified and found to be more common in some African countries than anywhere else, the myth of 'African' promiscuity returned. And it remains, explicitly or implicity, in HIV policy, journalism, and in much of the academic writing.

The characterization of African people as promiscuous goes hand in hand with the characterization of African men as sexually incontinent, animalistic, uncaring about those around them, particularly their own family members, and completely unamenable to change.

African women are seen as being entirely incapable of resisting the will of the men around them. They are mere victims, misused and discarded, to be 'rescued' by decent westerners, if they are lucky. They are then subjected to the pity of their rescuers, the journalists who write about them, and others who think this sort of thing 'just shouldn't happen'.

The author claims to have met with members of a women's 'secret society'. We are informed that such societies are "ancient cultural institutions found all over Sierra Leone". We can't gainsay that if we've never been to Sierra Leone, after all, they are secret, although we might ask how secret they are if the author could meet with them.

But, far more important than the claim that ebola is transmitted sexually (and it might be, occasionally), is the tone of the article, about how much women suffer, with the strong implication that this is the fault of Sierra Leonean men. But poverty, bad health, low levels of education, poor living conditions and terrible labor conditions are a fact of life for most people in Sierra Leone, male and female.

Education may be, as the headline says, crucial. But whose education is crucial? Whose knowledge? Whose data? Whose research? This academic seems to have recorded the result of decades of racist informed education, and now presents it to us as the unassailable views of Sierra Leonean women, at least, the ones who belong to these common 'secret' societies.

However, there are promiscuous people everywhere, but most people are not promiscuous. There are violent and abusive people everywhere, and the perpetrators may well be more likely to be male than female. But most people are not violent or abusive. Most men are not. And most women are not mere victims of everything that goes on around them.

This is not to say that there are not huge imbalances and great injustices, with many women suffering, often at the hands of men. But whatever strategy may bring relief to the suffering of women and men, it will not be one based on a puerile and reductive belief in the incredible baseness of African men, coupled with the complete inability of African women to defend themselves in any way.

Ebola, HIV, hepatitis, TB and many other diseases can be transmitted in various ways. One of the modes of transmission for all of them is unsafe healthcare, believe it or not. In the case of HIV, such transmission has been strenuously but entirely unconvincingly denied. Sex is one of several modes of transmission for HIV, but it is unlikely to be a significant mode of transmission of ebola.

But transmission of ebola through unsafe healthcare practices appears to be slipping through the net, as academics indulge in their fantasies about an assumed 'African' sexuality, along with a great love for seeking (female) 'victims' that they can rescue, study, and hopefully write scholarly(ish) papers about. These academics are not just deceiving themselves, they are deceiving those they claim to be concerned about.